9 entries from May 2009

May 30, 2009

If You Are Looking To Beat Up Some Queers, Welcome to Massachusetts. From Provincetown to Boston's South End to Gloucester It Appears That Hunting Season On Gays Is Now Open. But Who Ever Thought The Latest Gay Bashing Would Be In a Boston Municipal Court Room

A very dangerous precedent was set last week by Judge Thomas Horgan in Boston who handed down a two year suspended sentence to gay-basher Fabio Brandau, 29, for his brutal attack on a group of gay people last August in Boston's South End. Brandau and three other attackers left two men so badly beaten that they were sent to the hospital with major concussions. "Fucking faggots," were the words being used by Brandau continually throughout the assault. On May 27th Brandau pleaded guilty to nine criminal charges and four civil rights violations however, Judge Thomas Horgan felt that Brandau's realized penalties for this should only include paying the victim's medical bills, an order to stay out of the South End, an order to stay away from the victims, and a court sponsored "anger management" program. So much for those out there who believe hate crime legislation is a crock of shit, evidently in Judge Thomas Horgan's courtroom it is.

The Fenway Community Health Center's Violence Recovery Program's Emily Pitt, provides statistics that hate crimes increase during times of extreme anti-gay rhetoric such as one finds during the "dialogue" caused in legislative reviews of LGBT rights such as our fight for marriage equality and the media reporting. One wonders what sort of additive effect a stupid and reckless decision such as Judge Thomas Hogan's has on hate crimes here in Massachusetts. One can only summise that Judge Hogan has opened the door to alot more of the same.

May 29, 2009

With loopholes big enough for trained dogs to jump through, the New
Hampshire legislature and Gov. John Lynch look like they have a
workable compromise all can approve. It's likely that Wednesday this
coming week will be the day for a tweaked bill to get to Lynch and him
to sign it.

To placate the anti-gay and anti-marriage equality
sorts, the revised bill ended up today with wording even stronger than
Lynch proposed when he sent it back to the lawmakers for revisions. The concurrence committee of both houses put in broad conscience exemptions for nearly anyone connected with the wedding business.

As the AP writer put it:

The
new version, which is expected to come up for a vote Wednesday, adds a
sentence specifying that all religious organizations, associations or
societies have exclusive control over their religious doctrines,
policies, teachings and beliefs on marriage. It also clarifies that
church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational
purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits
to same sex spouses of employees. The earlier version said "charitable
and educational" instead of "charitable or educational."

That
could very well end up in Law Suit City if enough regressive sorts put
their hands to their foreheads sighing that they sensibilities are
being ravished by having to deal with homosexuals. Or, as Rep. Anthony DiFruscia put it more colorfully, "Hypothetically, if I'm a Nazi... do I now get an exemption because my conscience says if you're not blond and blue-eyed, I can discriminate against you?"

Regardless
the governor was looking to pretend that he forced religious protection
into this bill. Pretty much what he was asking for was already law and
it was the fringe added to the canopy he proposed. The range of the
compromise committee was a single sentence, plus one more word to the
entire bill.

May 19, 2009

The San Antonio Police Department has come under fire lately from Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender activist after police allegedly used derogatory comments against a lesbian couple during a home raid. The women, Lindsey and Carol, had been at home for the evening when police charged through the door advising, "We have a warrant." Evidently, a warrant had been issued after an anonymous informant who had been assisting the SAPD for over 2 years claimed that a man named "Randy" had been seen with methamphetamine in the home. Unfortunately, after the police entered the house, they allegedly made several lewd and derogatory comments about the couple including many references to their sexual orientation. The outrage from the community was swift and resulted in numerous emails to Police Chief, William McManus, resulting in him contacting the San Antonio Stonewall Democrats to advise them that he wanted to speak to the LGBT community about the situation. Chief McManus arrived at a crowded restaurant to a round of thunderous applause. He stood before the room and began by disarming everyone with a history of his involvement with the LGBT Community, including serving as Grand Marshal of the San Antonio Gay Pride Parade in spite of severe criticism. He then assured the group that, because of this history, he would never turn a "blind eye" to allegations of inappropriate conduct by officers against the gay community adding that, "[if the allegations] happen to be true, there are heavy consequences." He further stated:

The leader in a good organization leads by example, and I believe I've done that. My being here tonight is an example of this.

However, the Chief did admit that, although the academy training provides diversity training to new candidates, the officers are not trained to recognize a "slight" to the LGBT community. Lindsey and Carol's case is now in the hands of Internal Affairs and the matter is being investigated. The investigation will not be made public until it has been completed, for which no time frame was provided. Chief McManus insists that the LGBT community must not assume that something went wrong during the search but should instead, "...let due process run its course." In closing, Chief McManus delivered a heartfelt and tender review of his relationship with the LGBT community; however, he was shaken by the way the LGBT community drew such conclusions against him as he, "thought our relationship was better than that. A little love and trust goes a long way on both sides." So we are left waiting for answers, but now know that the investigation is ongoing and that these officers' alleged actions are not going unquestioned.

While speaking to PFLAG and LGBT officials KTN has learned that both women are suffering PTSD (post tramatic stress disorder) from this event and were originally reluctant to pursue the issue based on their fears.

May 16, 2009

Tom Lang and Alexander Westerhoff spent all day at the Massachusetts State House on Friday holding an 8' x 4' sign which reads, "Thank You Massachusetts for 5 Years of Equality. Lang and Westerhoff who have been together for 21 years and who were married on the first day of legal recognition, May 17, 2004 by The Reverend Peter J. Gomes of Harvard, make holding this Thank You sign their anniversary tradition.

"We have held this sign on our anniversary for five years now and have vowed to be at the Massachusetts State House every year on or about May 17th to say thank you," Lang says. "This day to us is a day of thanks and we want all those who made this possible to know that we will never forget that on May 17th, 2004, at least in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts my husband and myself and all other gay people became one step closer to being full American citizens."

May 15, 2009

Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of
the current court term after 19 years on the bench. The vacancy will
give President Obama his first chance to name a member of the high
court and begin to shape its future direction. We are urging the
consideration and appointment of Kathleen Sullivan.

Kathleen Sullivan is hands down one of the most qualified candidates.
She is a Marshall scholar and former Stanford Law dean whom
constitutional law legend Laurence Tribe once called “the most
extraordinary student I had ever had.” She is the author of the
nation’s leading casebook in constitutional law, has litigated before
the Supreme Court, and has been named one of the 100 most influential
lawyers in America by the National Law Journal. Sullivan was also a
professor of law at Harvard Law School from 1984 until 1993. She joined
Stanford Law School in 1993 and became the Stanley Morrison Professor
of Law in 1996. Sullivan then served as the dean of Stanford Law School
from 1999 until 2004, when she voluntarily stepped down to serve as the
inaugural director of a new Stanford center on constitutional law.
Since 2004, she has been the Stanley Morrison Professor of Law at
Stanford Law School.

In addition to this impressive list of qualifications, Sullivan is also
a woman and openly gay which would bring some much needed diversity to
the Supreme Court.

If chosen, Sullivan would become the first ever openly gay Justice and
third female Justice in United States history to serve on the Supreme
Court leading to a Court that more truly reflects the composition of
the American population.

May 14, 2009

Oh, my. New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch has me thinking macho and sexist thoughts — like he needs gonads.

Today he is speaking with reporters
saying he will/he won't sign the same-sex marriage bill he got at the
end of last week. His latest have-it-all-ways tactic is saying he'd
approved it with some changes. I'll update here when those become clear.

It seems he can't stand the idea of having to stand. The reactionaries and fundies
want him to veto it and put the Old Testament into marriage law. The
equality and civil-rights types want him to cut the crap and sign it
already. He apparently thinks that if he adds some more
pseudo-religious veneer, he'll satisfy both sides.

He's bound to anger everyone.

The
way I read the state constitution, this becomes law without his
signature. It would take agreement from both houses to reconsider the
content of the bill if he doesn't veto it. Good luck with that, Johnny
Boy. I bet he's going to have to veto it or let it become law.

Follow-up:He claims to have provided language he wants added or altered. Those words have yet to appear on the news sites.

I.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization,
association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or
supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization,
association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization
operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a
religious organization, association or society, shall not be required
to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or
privileges to an individual if such request for such services,
accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related
to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or
the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs,
courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and
such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage is in
violation of their religious beliefs and faith. Any refusal to provide
services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges
in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or
cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold
benefits from such religious organization, association or society, or
any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in
conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or
any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or
controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization,
association or society.

II.
The marriage laws of this state shall not be construed to affect the
ability of a fraternal benefit society to determine the admission of
members pursuant to RSA
418:5, and shall not require a fraternal benefit society that has been
established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes
and which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection
with a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any
person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society’s free
exercise of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment of the
Constitution of the United States and part 1, article 5 of the
Constitution of New Hampshire

III.
Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed or construed to limit the
protections and exemptions provided to religious organizations under RSA § 354-A:18.

IV. Repeal. RSA
457-A, relative to civil unions, is repealed effective January 1, 2011,
except that no new civil unions shall be established after January 1,
2010.

To my
reading, this is much ado about squat. Lynch wants to rephrase what is
already law and already covered in the kind of mealy-mouthed bill the
legislature passed. This likewise lets religious and now fraternal
organizations be as bigoted and discriminatory against LBGT citizens as they are now. Making sure the Elks and VFW are covered is trivial.

It appears as though he thinks he is protecting is perceived lifetime job by:

Making noises about vetoing the bill

Adding inconsequential refinements to pretend that he accommodated all sides.

What
a bozo. Then again, the votes to override a veto are likely
unobtainable this legislative term. Plus the Senate has already added crazy lingo
pretending there are two types of marriage in New Hampshire. They can
probably make Lynch feel he's done something substantial. I suspect
voters all around will know better next election.

Director, Tom Lang, took a call from an Arkansas college professor of Political Science who told him that as she was lecturing her class on KnowThyNeighbor's "brilliant" strategy, her students were on KTN's site searching the database, finding signers within social and family circles and even a professor at her university. KnowThyNeighbor was lauded by this Poli-Sci Professor for changing the way that Secretary of States all over this country will be disseminating petition information to the public as well as creating a method of database research that will prove invaluable to future generations while at the same time using our strategy for social change in the Gay Rights Civil Right Movement.

KnowThyNeighbor.org was an essential part of the fight to save marriage in Massachusetts. The dialogue created by our strategy would have not happened otherwise if we had not risen to the occasion. Recently, we have been receiving calls from Washington State LGBT to battle a potential referendum there and of course KnowThyNeighbor will be watching Maine closely and posting the names of signers of the anti-gay petition in that state as well. Anti-gays will not have to be CEO's of companies like Wal-Mart to go down on the wrong side of history in a very public way. These signers in Maine and Washington will need to reconcile with their family, friends, co-workers as to why they took a stand which will unquestionably hurt others. And KnowThyNeighbor.org will be there to shine a light on it all. History lasts a long time.......(thanks to the internet).

May 06, 2009

Bypassing huge opportunities for theatrics and cowardice, Maine's Gov. John Baldacci took his pen to the same-sex marriage bill this afternoon. Within a half hour of receiving the bill (LD 1020), he made it law.

With
so many, including the sitting President, cowardly about the fairness
and equality and hiding behind, "Duh, well, I always heard in church
that marriage was between one man and one woman," Baldacci tore the rag off the bush.

He said:

I
have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal
protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil
marriage.

This new law does not
force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its
beliefs,. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with
which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of church and
state.

It guarantees that Maine
citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and
that is the responsibility of government.

There may still be an effort for a plebiscite
by the dirty nasty sore losers. I wish them failure in trying to get
over 55,000 Mainers to sign for a vote in November. Short of that, they
are bound to see that a majority of their peers wants strong marriages
and equal rights.

May 05, 2009

Up in the Yankee Augusta, the Maine House fell in line with the Senate, passing same-sex marriage (LD 1020). The vote was 89 to 58 (adjusted later to 89 to 57).

Listening
to a couple of hours of the testimony live, I got the firm sense that
the opposition had accepted the vote long before it occurred. Several
representatives predicted a following plebiscite (a.k.a. People's Veto). They added that they expected to reverse the decision.

In the way is Gov. Baldacci. He is wishy-washy,
not promising to veto or sign or let the bill pass untouched. While he
mumbled weak marriage is one man/one woman, there is no passion. By the
bye, the House as it voted does not have enough proponents to override
a veto.

If the bill becomes law and if the opponents get 10% of
the vote numbers for the last governor's race on petitions, there will
be a referendum to overturn it. For a state making the shift from legal
domestic partnership to SSM, ripping back a legal right granted by the legislature would be a tough sell.

As
it was, the arguments opposing the bill were pretty weak and illogical.
A couple of lawmakers tried the old a man and a woman fit physically
and make their own babies. As usual, there was no corresponding
admission that many opposite-sex couples were not healthy for their
children, nor any recognition that many couples, regardless of genders,
adopt, use medical help to reproduce, cannot reproduce or choose not to
do so.

The baby-making argument is pale and frail.

One
opponent, Sheryl Briggs (D-Mexico), illustrated the befuddled
traditionalist. She said she has known one of her daughters has been an
out lesbian for 15 years. Briggs voted against the bill despite this.
The underlying justification went to the heart of the cultural divide.
She consistently referred to her daughter's "choice," as in "lifestyle
she has chosen."

On the other side, the speakers were similar to those the judiciary committee hearings
in New Hampshire and Maine. There was a good mix of the personal, legal
and logical from the representative. One, David Webster (D-Freeport),
noted that some religions and Protestant churches support SSM and
others do not. As a legislature, he said he had not right or intent to
legislate any religion's dogma over another's.

For example, Briggs' testimony led immediately to that from Emily Ann Cain (D-Orono).
She noted that 1020 "does not create same-sex couples in Maine."
Instead, it affirms "what already exists." She asked others to join her
"simply asking for fairness and equal treatment under law for what
already exists in Maine."

Another supporter, Veronica Magnan
(D-Stockton Springs) was a counterpoint to opponents. She is
middle-aged and a lifelong Christian. She said she was "born again in
the spirit in 1972." However, she and her fundamentalist church parted
ways on such issues as gay rights as the church became more radical. In
her mind, the argument that a family requires a father and mother to
work is not the norm from what she has seen in her life. Instead "two
committed adults have made the difference." She made it very plain she
was pro-marriage, for SS couples as well.